Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 16, 2009No. A06-2275Published

1ConcurrenceDietzen, Justice

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that appellants’ claim for compensatory damages is barred under the filed rate doctrine, but I disagree that appellants’ claim for injunctive relief is not barred under the filed rate doctrine. Because I conclude that the relevant provisions of the tariff are ambiguous, I would decline to answer the certified question as to whether the filed rate doctrine bars the claim for injunctive relief. I would simply refer appellants’ claim for injunctive relief to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to resolve the ambiguity in the tariff.

Like the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  2. Eternity Global Master Fund Limited v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and Jpmorgan Chase BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
  3. Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  4. Lorix v. Crompton Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  5. Zobel & Dahl Construction v. CrottySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API